Quote:What do you think Min?

Not quite as dumb as a bag of hair but it would be like trying to explain radar to your dog.


They begin with the assumption that their bullshit is true and insist that it be disproven.

Minimalist Wrote:Not quite as dumb as a bag of hair but it would be like trying to explain radar to your dog.

According to some here, animals are just as smart as people. So it shouldn't be a problem.

(March 16, 2010 at 6:02 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: Tav, you still haven't explained how inventing a computer is relevant to the survival of our species. And don't post an article here with views from other writers and scientists. They all contradict each other, anyway. Give me your own explanation.

A few issues with your statement.

1. You never asked me to establish how inventing a computer is relevant to the survival of the species.
2. I posted a video dealing with how knowledge and scientific progress directly affect our species' development.
3. All writers and scientists contradict each other? Have I given you ONE contradictory article?
4. What would happen if I agree with someone else's explanation? Would I then have to re-word it, just to prove a point to you?

(March 16, 2010 at 6:02 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: And you're not biased at all?

I have some bias, yes. But I'm not above conceding a point or admitting when I'm wrong about something. You calling people juvenile isn't making your point for you. You ignoring evidence thrown your way is not helping your case. You making a thread entitled "Evidence God exists" without a single shred of evidence, just a bald faced assertion on the basis of personal incredulity is NOT a solid argument.

Humans are intelligent, therefore God exists.

Yeah, I don't see how anyone could think that was a shitty argument.

(March 16, 2010 at 6:02 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: Okay. Would agree then that humans have control over more animal species than any other species has over other species?

It's largely irrelevant to the conversation what my speculation is on this certain subject. Can you back up your claim (humans have control over more animal species than any other species has over species) with evidence?

And how would humans controlling other sentient beings be evidence of a God?

(March 17, 2010 at 9:53 pm)AngelThMan Wrote:

Minimalist Wrote:Not quite as dumb as a bag of hair but it would be like trying to explain radar to your dog.

According to some here, animals are just as smart as people. So it shouldn't be a problem.

Don't make me regret my liberality.

Wow... 4 pages of avoiding the answer and you accuse Angel of not producing the goods!

This seems genuine: the Dominant Animal by Stanford scientists Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich
http://morethebook.org/dominantanimal.org/press/excerpt

How about you provide ideas as to how humans could consider themselves top of the food chain/ adaptable/ technologically advanced/ most intelligent... then perhaps we could move on.

Yes Watson I see that this is circular.If I could show how God created intelligence this would lead to proving Him and everyone would know there is God.However I do not agree that the knowledge of His existance is nullification of freewill.Because something exist doesn't mean you must follow it or believe that it represents truth.Take the Jewish people of Jesus time they had Gods Son with them yet they chose not to believe in what He represented.Law exist in the US and most people believe in it and believe it is trustworthy yet this doesn't nullify our freewill to disobey the law.

I have an opinion on why secular science believes that intelligence evolved but that would lead to more circular argument so there's no reason to go there.Please everyone don't over react to my use of the term secular science I like science be it secular or christain.I for one listen to both sides and then draw my own conclusions.

I think God would be foolish to do so, and that is certainly not the case...I mean, He's God. He's not foolish. xD I'll be elaborating on this idea at some point, in another topic, but you get the idea. A world where God was clearly proveable to any Joe Schmoe would be terrible.

(March 17, 2010 at 11:08 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Wow... 4 pages of avoiding the answer and you accuse Angel of not producing the goods!

This seems genuine: the Dominant Animal by Stanford scientists Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich
http://morethebook.org/dominantanimal.org/press/excerpt

How about you provide ideas as to how humans could consider themselves top of the food chain/ adaptable/ technologically advanced/ most intelligent... then perhaps we could move on.

Avoiding what answer?

Who are you talking to?

---

(March 18, 2010 at 12:09 am)Watson Wrote: I think God would be foolish to do so, and that is certainly not the case...I mean, He's God. He's not foolish. xD I'll be elaborating on this idea at some point, in another topic, but you get the idea. A world where God was clearly proveable to any Joe Schmoe would be terrible.

Please enlighten me. What the fuck does that mean?

(March 17, 2010 at 5:40 pm)AngelThMan Wrote:

Frank Wrote:Cosmological arguments and other apologetic devices (e.g. intelligent design) are merely post-hoc attempts to justify a preexisting belief system (which is the exact opposite of how science actually discovers things).

AngelThMan Wrote:When scientists explore the possibility of UFOs, they do not start out by asking why people believe in UFOs. They delve into other possibilities, not excluding witness accounts, which could be likened to the faith-based experiences of believers.

Frank Wrote:Is there something analogous to cosmological arguments commonly used to support the existence of UFO's?

I guess the closest kin would be the argument affirming a belief that there must be life outside of earth, though there's no conclusive proof. The argument I presented is that witness accounts of UFOs are analogous to faith-based experiences, such as when believers proclaim they have felt God's presence in their hearts. Both require the consideration of personal testimony. And if scientists can consider UFO witness accounts, they should also be able to consider accounts of inner faith. I tend not to separate science and faith like a lot of atheists, as well as a lot of Christians, do.

AngelThMan Wrote:Though we've seen many situations in which leaders have been killed, and no new religion has been created. The point is who can say whether what you claim is true or not?

Frank Wrote:It simply refutes a commonly held notion (examining the motives of would be myth makers is relevant if you're interested in studying religous mythology).

It is relevant, but certainly not conclusive.

You're indeed correct on this point - it's not conclusive (merely relevant). However, cases are commonly won on circumstantial evidence. Eventually the weight of evidence can build to a point where a position becomes unreasonable (even though no single piece of evidence was conclusive in itself).

(March 17, 2010 at 9:53 pm)AngelThMan Wrote:

Minimalist Wrote:Not quite as dumb as a bag of hair but it would be like trying to explain radar to your dog.

According to some here, animals are just as smart as people. So it shouldn't be a problem.

If that is what you got out of those pages of discussion then you have either a: not read any reply properly or b: are as dim as a doorknob.